Books and Movies

[bleachededen]

Why is anything by Jane Austen seen as a must for filmakers to try and recreate?

Some Austen films are good... but it's basically the same question as why Jane Austen is seen as a literary heroine... I'm sorry if I'm offending any hard-core Austen fans, but basically it's girl loves boy, in comes trouble, and in the end girl marries boy. I mean, after you've read Pride & Prejudice you only need a brief description of the characters in Sense & Sensibility and their relation in one sentence and you can lay out the entire plot. Willoughby is so extremely similar to Wickham, Fanny Dashwood is similar to Caroline Bingley etc. Although Emma was refreshing.
But I think she's regarded so high literary because she gaves us an idea about independent women and men who like them for who they are. It was a bit of her ideal world, I guess, strong-headed women marrying rich men.
And I think that's where the enchantment lies. It's a romantic plot based in the past. That always does well with the audience.

I agree with you completely. I've never understood the literati obsession with Jane Austen. I find her writing to be bland, boring, predictable, and not at all romantic (I don't like her general "romantic" formula). My only guess is that her gender and the fact that her writing was well received in a society that generally refused to accept female intellectuals has given her a pedestal in the eyes of history/literary greatness.

I hate to upset feminists, but just because a woman can write, doesn't mean her writing is good, or worthy of praise. The same goes for men, African Americans, and anyone of any race, class, or gender -- writing is either good or not, regardless of any superficial issues. These things may influence the writing, but that still isn't a determining factor in whether or not the writing is worthy of praise.

[tomwhite56]

Something I've learned for myself in recent years is to see the movie first, and then read the book, if at all possible -- not always so, for instance in the case of Lord of the Rings. I generally find that the experiences of both the movie and the book are more satisfying if I read the book after. This may be because I don't have a chance to "picture" the book and be thereafeter disappointed that the movie vision departed from my own -- which is inevitable, of course. Rather, reading the book after puts me in the position of being able to appreciate the movie more, and be more informed about motivations and actions that I saw occur. At least, I THINK that's why it works for me.

I think "Atonement" and "No Country for Old Men" are two of the best film adaptations I've ever seen. But there is nothing to compare to reading a book.

[tomwhite56]

I hate to upset feminists, but just because a woman can write, doesn't mean her writing is good, or worthy of praise. The same goes for men, African Americans, and anyone of any race, class, or gender -- writing is either good or not, regardless of any superficial issues. These things may influence the writing, but that still isn't a determining factor in whether or not the writing is worthy of praise.

I was just thinking about this yesterday. Someone I know runs a female-exclusive club called "Women Who Write" as if the fact they they write is in itself a cause for celebration. But it's like anything -- just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[tomwhite56]

Why is anything by Jane Austen seen as a must for filmakers to try and recreate?

Some Austen films are good... but it's basically the same question as why Jane Austen is seen as a literary heroine... I'm sorry if I'm offending any hard-core Austen fans, but basically it's girl loves boy, in comes trouble, and in the end girl marries boy. I mean, after you've read Pride & Prejudice you only need a brief description of the characters in Sense & Sensibility and their relation in one sentence and you can lay out the entire plot. Willoughby is so extremely similar to Wickham, Fanny Dashwood is similar to Caroline Bingley etc. Although Emma was refreshing.
But I think she's regarded so high literary because she gaves us an idea about independent women and men who like them for who they are. It was a bit of her ideal world, I guess, strong-headed women marrying rich men.
And I think that's where the enchantment lies. It's a romantic plot based in the past. That always does well with the audience.

I agree with you completely. I've never understood the literati obsession with Jane Austen. I find her writing to be bland, boring, predictable, and not at all romantic (I don't like her general "romantic" formula). My only guess is that her gender and the fact that her writing was well received in a society that generally refused to accept female intellectuals has given her a pedestal in the eyes of history/literary greatness.

I hate to upset feminists, but just because a woman can write, doesn't mean her writing is good, or worthy of praise. The same goes for men, African Americans, and anyone of any race, class, or gender -- writing is either good or not, regardless of any superficial issues. These things may influence the writing, but that still isn't a determining factor in whether or not the writing is worthy of praise.

I'm thinking that very possibly it's due to that dry, florid writing style that makes filmmakers want to breathe some life into her. I find her very difficult to read -- I'm especially confused by the British (Regency period?) convention of calling all but the oldest sisters, for instance, "Miss Bennett" (I actually wrote Ms. Bennett at first). I think that movies can do a different take on the books which are otherwise so similar -- wtiness "Mansfield Park", for instance, or even "Metropiltan", which draws on Mansfield Park for inspiration. And then of course there's "Clueless"!

I had a similar discussion with my kid about Dickens. Now I'm a big Dickens fan, but he had a miserable time with Great Expectations, to the point that when I tell him what a great film David Lean's adaptation is he just rolls his eyes. But the fact is that Dickens can be difficult, although probably not as bad as Austen, but his books make great movies.

I think it's all about whose hands the work is in. The BBC is certainly going to deliver a standard adaptation that clings inexorably to the book no matter what the cost. Filmmakers have the freedom to be more creative. But the sources may have run their course.

[bleachededen]

Clueless is my favorite Jane Austen book. *tongue in cheek*

It is a great adaptation, seriously, especially to make dry prose from an era teens could care less about enjoyable for modern youth.

[tomwhite56]

...And there's a new adaptation of 'Emma' on Masterpiece Classic on PBS right now!

[caseyjo]

I tend to like movies based on books, but mostly because I expect much less of them. Two of the movies that I think are actually better than the book have already been mentioned: "Lord of the Rings" and "Fight Club." I've heard that Chuck Palahniuk likes the ending of the movie better than the ending of the book, and I can see way. Possibly my favorite adaptation is Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet" because nothing like that had ever really been done before (or since).

The problem I see is that hollywood usually tries to just capitalize on a book's popularity by bringing it to the big screen. Great screenwriters think about the medium of film, and how it can convey something that could not be conveyed in the book. They tell the story a different way and really make it their own. Mediocre screenwriters don't seem to understand the differences between print and film, and just expect everything to translate.

Why is anything by Jane Austen seen as a must for filmakers to try and recreate?

Some Austen films are good... but it's basically the same question as why Jane Austen is seen as a literary heroine... I'm sorry if I'm offending any hard-core Austen fans, but basically it's girl loves boy, in comes trouble, and in the end girl marries boy. I mean, after you've read Pride & Prejudice you only need a brief description of the characters in Sense & Sensibility and their relation in one sentence and you can lay out the entire plot. Willoughby is so extremely similar to Wickham, Fanny Dashwood is similar to Caroline Bingley etc. Although Emma was refreshing.
But I think she's regarded so high literary because she gaves us an idea about independent women and men who like them for who they are. It was a bit of her ideal world, I guess, strong-headed women marrying rich men.
And I think that's where the enchantment lies. It's a romantic plot based in the past. That always does well with the audience.

My problem with the Austen movies is that she has somehow been recast as a chick-lit romance author. The movies tend to leave out the aspects of social satire that make Austen's novels so fun. That said, I really did enjoy "Bridget Jone's Diary" (book and film).